Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Remove the LDA reference in related packages now that we have it in scikit-learn? #5529

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
GaelVaroquaux opened this issue Oct 22, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels
Documentation Easy Well-defined and straightforward way to resolve

Comments

@GaelVaroquaux
Copy link
Member

I think that we should remove the pointer to LDA in
http://scikit-learn.org/dev/related_projects.html

What do people think?

@GaelVaroquaux GaelVaroquaux added Easy Well-defined and straightforward way to resolve Documentation Need Contributor labels Oct 22, 2015
@amueller
Copy link
Member

That one uses a collapsed gibbs sampler, ours is variational. We should change the reference to be explicit about that. ping @ariddell

@ariddell
Copy link
Contributor

I didn't know there was a reference. Thanks!

The algorithms (Gibbs vs. VB) are very different.

@amueller
Copy link
Member

Do you want to sent a PR that explains the difference in one or two sentences? It is more for the interested expert, I guess.
Otherwise we'll find someone to do it ;)

@ariddell
Copy link
Contributor

Sure. I'll write a sentence or two. I need to add a link to the sklearn
implementation anyway (in the lda repo) for those who want to use VB.

On 10/22, Andreas Mueller wrote:

Do you want to sent a PR that explains the difference in one or two sentences? It is more for the interested expert, I guess.
Otherwise we'll find someone to do it ;)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#5529 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Documentation Easy Well-defined and straightforward way to resolve
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants